So, we are greeted on Monday’s editorial page with both Mike Luckovich’s cartoon and letter-writer Kathi Goff’s letter claiming Republicans are dragging out the investigation of the Benghazi attacks for political purposes. She states, “Certainly intelligent, informed Americans can see this is politics at its very worst.” Well, no, Kathi, I am intelligent and do not see it that way at all. Let me tell you what I do see: our president, standing before the entire world at the United Nations in New York lying about an Internet movie being the cause of the deaths of our people. I guess I am just one of those guns- and Bible-clutching Republicans who don’t get it.

I never understood how American women could forgive Bill Clinton for his activities with Monica Lewinsky, and I will never understand any American forgiving our president lying to the entire world.

David Longenecker, Morrison

This letter was published in the May 22 edition.

Letter-writer Kathi Goff fails to address the issue: Should the president and secretary of state be allowed to lie to the American people and not be held accountable? Through congressional testimony and government e-mails, we now know (and the administration knew) the day after that Benghazi was a 9/11 terrorist attack and not orchestrated by a mob over a YouTube video. Yet they sent Susan Rice, our U.N. ambassador, on TV news programs to lie to us about the attack. There were 12 different versions of talking points massaging the message not to make the president look bad before an election.

Now we see the government abuse of power with the IRS and AP scandals — Nixonian politics at their finest. Do we just accept the fact that our executive branch of government is allowed to lie to the American people?

Charles Krauthammer continues in his attempt to breathe life into the Benghazi episode by again rehashing the administration’s ostensible efforts to report the incident in a most favorable light (as if the Bush-Cheney duo didn’t similarly mislead us into the Iraq quagmire). Then he clothes himself in righteous sanctity and suggests that the White House “Try the truth” for a change.

Krauthammer ought to follow what he preaches. Nowhere in his discussion of Benghazi does he mention that the administration’s indecision in reporting the circumstance had nothing to do withe cause or the unfortunate results of the attack. He fails to mention that Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance, and that the Republican Congress had refused to approve additional funds for embassy security.

Krauthammer’s diatribe merely attempts to keep a questionable criticism alive for political reasons. He should get over it.

Robert C. Lehnert, Denver

This letter was published in the May 22 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[3]. Follow eLetters[4] on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

-The white house did not alter any emails, rather republicans lied about what was in the emails

-There were nearby protests as a result of the video, leading the CIA to initially believe the video was involved

-Obama called it an act of terror the day after the attacks

-Republicans are liars.

We’ve been over all this a million times, yet the republican brain trust just can’t let go of the disproven lies.

And you’ve gotta love a (presumably) republican saying “Do we just accept the fact that our executive branch of government is allowed to lie to the American people”. You owe me a new irony detector, Dick.

And David, I don’t know a single republican who denies that these attacks on the prez are anything BUT political theater.

#2 Comment By Robtf777 On May 21, 2013 @ 5:32 pm

“Benghazi hearings: politics or uncovering the truth?”

================

Taken in isolation, it would be easy for Democrats to claim that Benghazi is merely partisan politics.

Just as taken in isolation, it would be easy for Democrats to claim that Fast and Furious is merely partisan politics.

Just as taken in isolation, it would be easy for Democrats to claim that the IRS Fiasco is merely partisan politics.

Just as taken in isolation, it would be easy for Democrats to claim that the AP Spying Scandal is merely partisan politics.

Just as taken in isolation, it would be easy for Democrats to claim that the World-wide concern over the use of drones by the US Military and the CIA that has killed, is killing, and will continue to kill…..more civilian and children than “legitimate targets”….. is merely partisan politics.

Just as taken in isolation, it would be easy for Democrats to claim that the Trillion-Dollar Annual Deficits and the Ballooning National Debt is merely partisan politics.

But a lot of people don’t look at Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS Fiasco, the AP Spying Scandal, the use of drones, and the Deficits/Debt only in “isolated” terms as the near-sighted Democrats want to do……but look at those things – and more – in terms of a “combined overall trend”……that calls into question (1) what Obama meant when he promised “hope and change” (2) the morals of the Obama Administration (3) the ethics of the Obama Administration (4) the “legalities” the Obama Administration ignores and flaunts (5) the “constitutional” issues the Obama Administration ignores and flaunts.

The Denver Post, in its own editorial, put Benghazi as one part of a three-ring circus. The list above adds another 3 issues to make it a 6-ring circus. Perhaps others would include Obamacare and other issues to the list……..that begs the question: Is there anything the Obama Administration will NOT do……to achieve whatever it is they want to do……even if they have to resort to questionable moral, ethical, legal, constitutional……and bomb and injure, maim, kill a whole bunch of civilians/children……to achieve whatever it is they are trying to achieve.

#3 Comment By Guest On May 21, 2013 @ 5:54 pm

How many times have we been over this?

-The white house did alter the emails, republicans did not lie about what was in the emails

-There were never any protests as a result of the video, leading us to wonder why the CIA asserted the video was involved

-Obama called it an act of terror the day after the attacks, but still insisted it was just an out of control protest as a result of the video.

-Democrats are liars.

We’ve been over all this a million times, yet the democrat brain trust just can’t let go of their proven lies.

#4 Comment By Tbone On May 21, 2013 @ 6:29 pm

Great! So show us all where and how the administration supposedly altered the emails. are you ignorant of the fact that ABC had to apologize fur their story claiming the white house altered the talking points?

Oooops! I got my facts in your lies.sorry!

And you’re pretending that the video protests in Cairo, for example, never happened?

#5 Comment By Dano2 On May 21, 2013 @ 6:32 pm

None of the usual suspects wants to discuss how a GOP operative doctored the e-mails and the librul media fell for it. CBS admitted they were duped.

I guess if they flagellate themselves and ululate long enough, something will happen. At least, that’s the only tactic I can discern here.

Best,

D

#6 Comment By Dano2 On May 21, 2013 @ 6:34 pm

If they repeat their BS long enough, it becomes da troot, don’tcha know.

Best,

D

#7 Comment By Guest22 On May 21, 2013 @ 6:47 pm

[5]

OR

[6]

So, really all that’s been proven is both Republicans and Democrats lie because, after all, they are politicians.

Politician (n.) ˌpä-lə-ˈti-shən: An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive. (Source: Devil’s Dictionary).

#8 Comment By Stephen Blecher On May 21, 2013 @ 8:48 pm

Sen James Imhofe of Oklahoma is the number one witch hunter in the Benghazi affair. He’s trying to get people to believe there was some kind of coverup going on, when there was simply confusion in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack. if you want an example of confusion, just look at the terrible tornado in Imhofe’s home state of Oklahoma. I turned on the news just after the tornado passed by and there was massive confusion. Conflicting reports were coming in every minute, even though there were lot of reporters and first responders present. Some reports said all the school children were safe and others said there were casualties. By late evening the number of dead was reported as 51, with a possible toll of 91, based on the number of people reported as missing. I turned on the news early this morning, and they said the death toll was 24, because evening before the number of dead was counted twice. Am I surprised at the confusion? Not at all, because that’s what happens when there is a dire emergency and everybody is clamoring for information. I don’t blame anybody either, and I’m sorry for the tornado victims. This demagogue Imhofe is trying to hang Obama for the confusion in Benghazi, which is a lot more remote than Oklahoma. Imhof should consider this, but he is too corrupt.

#9 Comment By thor On May 21, 2013 @ 8:52 pm

When you don’t blog on the climate then we get no substance from you. Very interesting. (And your reply will go something like this: “Too bad you are having a sad.” Best D)

#10 Comment By thor On May 21, 2013 @ 8:53 pm

The video protests in Cairo may not have been about the video. But it did make a nice item to hang the Benghazi tale to.

#11 Comment By Dano2 On May 21, 2013 @ 9:03 pm

You are oh-so right. Pointing out how a GOP operative doctored the e-mails and the librul media fell for it. CBS admitted they were duped. is just golly so lacking, like, substance dude.

But continue to flail away. Please proceed.

Best,

D

#12 Comment By Guest On May 21, 2013 @ 9:24 pm

If you repeat your BS long enough, it becomes da troot, don’tcha know.

Best,

G

#13 Comment By thor On May 21, 2013 @ 9:43 pm

You didn’t point out anything when I replied to you. You wrote “If they repeat their BS long enough, it becomes da troot, don’tcha know.” And your spelling is atrocious. You could probably spell better if you weren’t so busy flailing. Your turn.

#14 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 4:37 am

Change the subject much?

#15 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 4:39 am

It appears the Democrats are starting to get desperate. The everyone else does it excuse is just that, an excuse.

#16 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 4:48 am

I’ve noticed how desperate you and others seem regarding this (and the other two) major scandals going on right now.

But the Washington Post took your basic comment that was put forward by Dan Pfeiffer on Face the Nation (and other shows) when he said: “I think one of the problems that there’s so much controversy here is because one of the e-mails was doctored by a Republican source and given to the media to falsely smear
the president.”

The Washington Post (not a GOP operative) gave it three Pinocchios.

I’d give you a few more because you are so boring.

#17 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 4:50 am

That does appear to be your M.O.

#18 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 4:52 am

The Washington Post gives your position three Pinocchios.

Continue to flail away. Please proceed.

#19 Comment By Dano2 On May 22, 2013 @ 7:37 am

No need to project.

There are not three major scandals. There is only a bunch of hapless stooges running around whining about three major scandals.

Best,

d

#20 Comment By earthside On May 22, 2013 @ 7:42 am

How is all this ‘scandal-mongering’, this obstructionism, this never-ceasing Obama bashing working out for the Repuglicans?

CNN/ORC poll released May 20, 2013: Republican Party ‘unfavorable’ rating at 59%; ‘favorable’ at 35%.

The Democratic Party on the other hand has a ‘favorable’ rating at 52% and an ‘unfavorable’ at 43%.

Think about that, essentially sixty percent of Americans don’t like the Tea-publicans, even after all these years of whining and moaning and complaining and obstructing and conspiring against Barack Obama.

By contrast, 58% say that the following statement does apply to Pres. Obama: “Is honest and trustworthy.”

So, keep it up Tea-publicans!
Benghazi yourselves to total irrelevance!

#21 Comment By Tbone On May 22, 2013 @ 8:02 am

“may” not?

#22 Comment By Tbone On May 22, 2013 @ 8:04 am

where?

#23 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 8:05 am

Yeah. None of that has anything to do with the veracity of Benghazi, the IRS scandal and the AP scandal. Keep trying though. Its always amusing to watch morons (liberals) continuously defend this failure of a president and his incompetent, ideologically driven administration. Enjoy it while it lasts.Once the adults take charge in the next election and fix the damage done to this country by Obama and the democrats, it’ll probably be the last time we see a Democrat president for awhile.

#24 Comment By Tbone On May 22, 2013 @ 8:06 am

Where did they do that, and why did ABC news apologize for getting the story wrong? After the original emails were release, ABC had to backtrack.

#25 Comment By anywoman On May 22, 2013 @ 8:12 am

South Carolina Democrat just proved you wrong in committee.

#26 Comment By anywoman On May 22, 2013 @ 8:16 am

And we all know the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.

#27 Comment By anywoman On May 22, 2013 @ 8:31 am

Oooh ooooh, you left out the HHS scandal! Sebilius shaking down insurance companies to fund Obamacare outreach! For sure there will be something else next week. What about the “acting alone” Boston bombers friend in Florida? FLORIDA! That’s not next door to Boston you know. Apparently this is further spread than two guys acting along. We need some real cops to take the terrorist investigation on and ferret out the rest of them before they get their pressure cookers packed tight.

Once you get your head out of the Fox ‘News’ bubble, stop hearing the echo chamber of Rush Limbard and Mark Levin, and cease clicking on World Nut Daily for explanations …. well, you’ll comprehend that the vast majority of average, working Americans like Pres. Obama and increasingly are perceiving the Tea-publicans as reactionary extremists.

Outside of the ‘bubble’ of Obama hatred, America is a very different place — that’s why Pres. Obama was reelected, that’s why the Democrats control the Colorado legislature, That’s why Repuglicans lost seats in the U.S. House and Democrats kept the Senate in 2012.

My prediction: Tea-publicans will double-down on their Obama-bashing, will embrace the looney Christian fanatics even tighter, will figuratively merge with the NRA, will dump on immigration reform in the House, will increase their anti-science diatribes, will hype war with Iran and —– they will die a rather slow death and not even exist as a major political party by 2020.

#29 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 8:35 am

“Why did they apologize for getting the story wrong?”

Here’s the apology. I can live with it can you?

“Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that
it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I
should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately.”

Now I don’t see ABC admitting they were duped. And the apology specifically says they didn’t get the story wrong. Want to try again?

#30 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 8:36 am

Good thing you took the name earthside otherwise we would think you are from another planet.

#31 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 8:38 am

Every time you come on with your “did not” comments, you simply demonstrate the desperation of which I spoke. LOLz.

Best,

G

#32 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 8:41 am

Well there were no demonstrations in Benghazi or that much we can be sure despite Barack and Hillary trying to pin the blame on the video for two weeks after the murders and even into 2013 when Hillary told us, “What difference does it make?”

#33 Comment By Tbone On May 22, 2013 @ 8:42 am

Let me get this straight. The “story” is that the white house changed talking points, based on some emails that republicans claimed they had.

Now it turns out that no, the republicans didn’t have any emails that show the white house doctoring emails.

And somehow the “story”, which has been completely debunked by the lack of doctored emails, still stands.

Awesome. ABC admits they got it wrong, but somehow the story still stands.

#34 Comment By Tbone On May 22, 2013 @ 8:44 am

Still waiting for those “doctored” emails from the White House.

#35 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 8:44 am

Google “The White House claim of ‘doctored e-mails… to smear the president’” and the first story is the fact checker story.

#36 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 8:45 am

It got lost in the new regulations by Obamacare.

#37 Comment By Tbone On May 22, 2013 @ 8:45 am

And she was right. What difference, after the fact, does it make? Are you claiming that if they had said something else, after the attacks, that somehow the attacks wouldn’t have happened?

And does anyone know what caused 911?

#38 Comment By Dano2 On May 22, 2013 @ 9:06 am

Don’t hold your breath, as they don’t exist.

Best,

D

#39 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 9:09 am

Islamic terrorist who had declared war on the United States in the 1990s.

#40 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 9:22 am

No, you don’t have the story correct. The White House made the email available but wouldn’t give anyone copies. They were allowed to take notes. The republicans never claimed they had the emails only the notes. These notes were shared with reporters but they were notes and were actually accurate as notes, but not quotations. Karl put quotation marks on one statement.

I’m not sure what you are talking about when you say ” the republicans didn’t have any emails that show the white house doctoring emails” The emails were about how they changed the talking points from ones that actually gave the information we had to ones that “respected all relevant equities” except the truth.

Dan Pfeiffer just out right lied when he said, “Republican source provided to Jon Karl of ABC News a doctored version of the White House email that started this entire fury.” No emails were provided by the Republicans and none were claimed to have been provided.

Try reading the apology again. It says the email was incorrectly quoted. That’s because it wasn’t a quote but a note combining information from a number of emails which was true. Understand?

#41 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 9:59 am

Proof positive that the right-wing Goebbels-like spin machine does work. When you can convince people like David and Richard, that the President “lied” about Benghazi “to the entire world!” and was directly involved in the coverup. Yeah, right! (excuse pun) Not a whisper of facts or truth. . just all lies and spin, and there’s always the Obama-haters that suck it up like a Tyson.

What a small world they must live in to hold such non-truths, such insignificant allegations as the important aspect of their lives and what they feel the country must be focused on. . but not Climate Change or Keystone Pipeline. lowered wages, unemployement, lack of health care, etc. No, these guys are focused on right-wing spin that the President was directly behind some mythical cover up of an embassy attack. . yet totally deny the 54 embassy attacks previously held where 13 died, and only 3 hearings were held (U. of Maryland study), they didn’t get the same reaction. When you live in Right-Wing World in a bubble. . little get is, but too much gets out, and the Post is there to publish it.

#42 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:03 am

Because when you can’t hang other lies on the President Django, like where he was born, you have to resurrect things and make it sound important. Then those pesky facts of what Bush did about embassy bombings and his administration’s culpability in 9/11 come to the forefront, again, and they have to go on defense mode. Attacking Obama to sell their agenda is a such a misguided method of advancing their cause, that they didn’t really learn from the 2012 elections.

#43 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:06 am

Quoting Robert Lehnert “He fails to mention that Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance, and that the Republican Congress had refused to approve additional funds for embassy security.”
I have to reference this with a previous discussion with “Anywoman” who claimed I was making things up when I reference that the ambassador himself refused additional security to demonstrate that the U.S. didn’t need this obvious huge security installation to show the locals they supported the new gov’t, and that it’s (always) the Republicans to vote down funding for embassy security, . . or hurricane relief, like the Oklahoma senators and 2 congressmen did on hurricane Sandy, but watch how they vote on tornado relief for their state.

#44 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:09 am

See Tbone. . you have to live in Right-Wing World in the bubble, in order to not accept the.. . (gulp!) facts. You can only operate on belief, not truth. I was going to google all the sources to counter Guest’s counter “beliefs” but then I remember. . the bubble. Can’t let facts get through. Keep up the faith!

#45 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:13 am

thor, why you boffing Dano on this? Climate change is just one progressive topic – it is OK with you isn’t it if we respond to other topics. . like political ones? It irritates,/i> you when someone uses some moniker like “Best, D” which is considered a pleasantry in most circles (I’m sure he includes you! ;o), just like you accuse me of only “replying” to emails, (like you NEVER do!). So I posted TWO original thoughts this time. Just for you! :o) (note to thor: the smiling face is for you!)

#46 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:16 am

with pleasure, and your permission. Thank you! :o)

#47 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:16 am

Really, thor! You’re now attacking his. . . spelling? I think you missed Dano’s jab. . I think he was making fun of your species (oooh, I know you hate that word!)

#48 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:26 am

and that’s your smoking gun?

#49 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:38 am

Guest as usual you’re looking for love in all the wrong places. Whether the Republicans were behind altering the emails they released, can be denied, but the fact they lied, can not. Keep on trying to breath life into this dead horse, Guest, because it’s dead, except in Right-Wind World. Suprised you stepped outside the bubble to use google, but note you only selected a specific search phrase that got you the hit you were looking for. “Three pinocchios. . oh my!”

[7]

[8]

[9]

#50 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:40 am

now see, there you go again, Guest. . taking out a line from a dialogue without including the full context. We know your ilk loves to focus on sound bites, whether it’s a protest on a video to what Hillary or Obama said. You don’t want us to dust off the Bush sound bites!

#51 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:42 am

I think you mean what could of “prevented” 9/11 like intelligence Condi presented to the cabinet about “Bin Ladin to attack” and “flying planes into buildings.” Try googling “bush administration had intelligence on 9/11″

#52 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:43 am

another “lie” about it’s volumn

#53 Comment By The Scorekeeper On May 22, 2013 @ 10:44 am

I took your quote and googled it. It seems that there are only two hits using it and the both come back to your posting here. Now not wanting to jump to conclusions, I took Robert Lehnert’s name and Ambassador Stevens and googled them and it also came back to the same two hits.

Now I don’t want to accuse you of making things up, but do you really think you are the only person on the internet who has heard this quote?

But you did mention you were 65. Perhaps a physical would be a good idea.

#54 Comment By The Scorekeeper On May 22, 2013 @ 10:46 am

I think he was kidding. Remember my suggestion about the physical.

#55 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:47 am

oooh!, Guest. . you’re SO clever to attempt to offend us by emulating our “style.” But your intellectual message always gives you away.

#56 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:50 am

Guest is like a dog with a bone with this. . . he actually found an “media” source that denies the Republicans were behind the doctoring of the White House emails, and because of that we need to impeach President Django, and tell Hillary to look for work elsewhere? he’s not going to let this go, so get use to him repeating it. let’s see, how many times has he repeated it here, three, four times? I guess when emails get released by Republicans and they’re contrary to what the White House proves that were released, then it must of been magic or some White House “lie” that makes the Republicans look bad?

#57 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:51 am

and the public agrees in actually increasing Obama’s approval ratings. But they’re still “concerned” about what happened, as well they should be. But the Repubs want to make this about Obama, and that dog won’t hunt.

#58 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:53 am

Well there’s one!
Hey, any, how about responding the allegation that I made it up that the Chris Stevens rejected additional security? Remember when you called me a liar on that? I DO try to fact-check my statements. Do bad you don’t. But I’m sure you got this one right (excuse pun)

#59 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:54 am

and every time you lie an angel loses it’s wings and you lose another vote

#60 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:55 am

“minutia”. . . ‘ it’s all they got for powder in their “smoking gun!”

#61 Comment By toohip On May 22, 2013 @ 10:56 am

Give it up Tbone, you’re not going to pry Guest from his belief, and why he can’t seek truth beyond a single source. Tell him “he’s right” (excuse obviousness) and move on to . . . the rest of the story.

Where did you see anything about impeaching the President (and where did you get that racist’s term of Django for Mr. Obama)?

But do you have anything that shows the Republicans actually released doctored emails. Now a republican source did give notes from the emails but the Republicans didn’t have any emails to doctor.

#64 Comment By reinhold23 On May 22, 2013 @ 11:24 am

Your Google skills are lacking. Try this string, and you’ll come up with plenty of hits:

“Ambassador Christopher Stevens turned down security assistance”

#65 Comment By Guest22 On May 22, 2013 @ 11:48 am

You’re correct! I’m desperate, considering I’m a true independent, for politicians that will actually do their jobs instead of getting caught up in the last scandal or tightrope walking. I vote for people based on the job they actually do, not whether they have a (D) or (R) after their name, so spare me the hysterics.

The reason our government is in so much trouble is because neither side wants to take responsibility for their own actions, let alone agree to work in a bipartisan fashion and it’s been that way for nearly 20 years. I, for one, am tired of it as are a great many other people.

#66 Comment By reinhold23 On May 22, 2013 @ 11:52 am

Once the adults take charge…. LOL

#67 Comment By guest On May 22, 2013 @ 12:08 pm

Be careful, 22, the IRS may be monitoring these boards.

#68 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 12:30 pm

It is your side that seem to be promoting a smoking gun. The left keeps saying the Republicans released doctored emails when they didn’t. The real problem is you can’t seem to make your charge stand.

#69 Comment By Dano2 On May 22, 2013 @ 1:16 pm

Awesome. ABC admits they got it wrong, but somehow the story still stands.

Don’t confoose them with facts. It makes them angrier.

See, all their self-identities are tied up in this. Their very identities are dependent on this being a scandal and the Kenyan isn’t worthy. That’s all there is to it.

Don’t confuse them with facts. It makes them angrier.

Best,

D

#70 Comment By Tbone On May 22, 2013 @ 1:19 pm

No doubt. The bubble is impenetrable by anything except faux news, alex jones, and sarah palin.

No, my google skills are great. What we have is an unnamed source telling us Stevens turned down two offers of protection. Since we know he made four requests for more security, that seems a bit far fetched unless you want to believe it. But the way to handle it is to get that person to testify on the record.

#74 Comment By reinhold23 On May 22, 2013 @ 1:27 pm

You said your Googling returned two hits:

“there are only two hits using it and the both come back to your posting here”

A little consistency from you would be nice.

#75 Comment By holyreality On May 22, 2013 @ 1:29 pm

Richard Pearson of Parker,

Your trumping the Nixon card is an insult to every evil dictator in history.[10]

I’m unsure if you are clever enough to have thought this up for yourself(depicting a passing memory for headlines), or if you regurgitate what you heard from your favored “media” source.

If you want to see what a professional cover up looks like; try reading a serious journalist, not some talking head.

[11]

#76 Comment By thor On May 22, 2013 @ 2:12 pm

“without including the full context.” You are a fine one to speak. You do it all the time.

#77 Comment By thor On May 22, 2013 @ 2:13 pm

May not. Can you provide proof that it was?

#78 Comment By The Scorekeeper On May 22, 2013 @ 2:19 pm

No, I googled the quote. It provided two hits. I then googled Robert Lehnert’s name and Ambassador Stevens who was supposedly the person being quoted and Steven’s name was in the quote. Again there were only two hits.

If you google your”Ambassador Christopher Stevens turned down security assistance” you get 200,000 hits, but they pretty much tell the same story, that is, an unnamed source says that Stevens was offered more security twice and turned it down. I’ve explained it as best I can. I’m not sure what inconsistency you see in what I said.

#79 Comment By The Scorekeeper On May 22, 2013 @ 2:23 pm

I just reread your comment. I found the multiple hits when I used your google words vs what toohip said. Using toohip’s quote that he said Robert Lehnert had uttered I could only find his posting. Using the generic comment you find a lot more hits, but all of them seem to be from the same original source with no named source for the allegation.

Now notice the tone of the liberals on the boards. It seems your “FACTS” are all ad hominem attacks on the right. If you ever want to actually talk about reality simply cut out all the cutesy spelling of words and get into a real discussion.

“A deep dive into The Washington Post poll might give us a clue. According to the Post, Obama’s lies about Benghazi are finally– despite the best efforts of the media — catching up to Obama, even among Democrats:

Fully 55 percent say the Obama administration is trying to hide the facts, while just 33 percent say it has honestly disclosed what it knows of the incident. It’s not just Republicans crying foul: Six in 10 independents and nearly three in 10 Democrats say the administration is not being forthright.

Essentially, Obama has triangulated himself into a corner. He can either come off as corrupt, inept, or clueless about what is happening in his own government.”

From his behavior it appears he’s going for either inept or clueless. This is from a story talking about how Obama’s approval ratings have fallen below 50% in four different polls.

#84 Comment By Al On May 22, 2013 @ 3:57 pm

Why do libs believe in climate change? With their head so far up obamas buttocks the climate must never change up there. And yet they continue to believe in the tooth fairy, climate change and what ever garbage passes carnyvilles lips. We can’t even compare todays libs to rats because at least rats are smart enough to abandon a sinking ship.

#85 Comment By Guest On May 22, 2013 @ 4:59 pm

I really can’t believe you used videocafe crooksandliar source. Did you actually read the story?

I’m not quoting from it but I will summarize it. The misquote by ABC had a comment from Ben Rhodes that added mention of the State Department in making sure that all departments were okay with the talking points. Rhodes did not mention the State Department specifically.

The second misquote was of Victoria Nuland who worried that the Members might use the talking points to beat up State Department for not heeding the CIA’s warnings. The Republican notes didn’t have Nuland specifically saying the State Department.

I’m probably giving you too much credit, but it’s pretty easy to see what happened and if you put the two actual emails together and compare them to the story, the story was correct it just mixed up who specifically mentioned the State Department.